Judges are increasingly visible in their participation in activities off the bench. This may create difficulties in drawing the line between their duties in court and their other activities. If judges are not aware of the importance of this line, their activities may interfere with their judicial duties. With regard to the issue of international child abduction, some judges, on and off the bench, have wrongly taken over the role of the executive in international relations. Such activity jeopardizes the independence of the judiciary. Some judges are being seduced into exceeding their proper judicial role by working with government in policymaking and by their contacts with judges from other countries. Two examples of judicial behavior were chosen to illustrate contemporary threats to the independence of the judiciary. These examples show how well-intentioned judges, concerned with combating an international practice that they view as a threat to children’s welfare, may lose sight of the limits of their judicial role. The fundamental principle underlying the independence of the judiciary is doing “right to all manner of people.” Once members of the judiciary seek for themselves a role in international diplomacy, they are putting at risk their primary judicial function to determine the merits of a case on the basis of the evidence and arguments presented. Anything that compromises the performance of this core function should be regarded with suspicion. Judicial openness brings with it dangers. It may not only encourage judges to be open, but to step outside their proper constitutional role. 56 footnotes